Summary: The military has become one of America’s petri dishes for social policy experiments, and the integration of women into the front line fighting forces has introduced stresses far greater than anything they’ve experienced before (the faux revolution from letting people out of the closet has produced a false sense of confidence in the outcome of this far greater change). Here we briefly review the state of the action today. {2nd of 2 posts today.}
The tides of change have hit the US military as it adapts to equal roles for women, with massive effects that we as yet can only dimly see.
One result has been to start a slow-mo purge in the officers corps. “At least 30% of military commanders fired over the past 8 years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships” (per AP). The scalps include those of senior officers. They might look with envy at Congressmen whose office policies (illegally) protect them at against charges of improper behavior (it’s as delicately written an article as any in a Victorian era newspaper).
War is perhaps the most complex and demanding of social activities, made more so by its rapid rate of evolution during the past 150 years. Adding women to the formula makes it far more complex. What gets dropped to make mindspace for these new concerns? What would Clausewitz or Patton make of this: “Lawmakers want clearer Army breastfeeding rules“? Or this tidbit about women warriors from AP’s “Pentagon grapples with retaliation in sex assault cases“…
“… often victims believe they are being retaliated against if peers no longer invite them to parties or if they are disciplined for illegal drug or alcohol use in connection with the assault.”
In the universities and armed forces of America — our petri dishes for social policy experiments — we see the tensions created by rapid social change expressed in a binary state of reporting about women today, flipping between the contradictory scripts of women as Cinderella (so vulnerable to diminished capacity after a few drinks) and Xena Warrior Woman. It’s difficult to honestly describe these tensions, so the media frequently resorts to fantasy, as in this May 14 story in the Marine Corps Times:
…{it’s about} home life for many Marines of the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, who wrapped up a series of combat arms assessments … Marines assigned to the task force’s infantry and weapons elements lived side-by-side in one- and two-man tents — regardless of gender — the way a future integrated unit might expect to live during field training or downrange on a deployment. Despite the close quarters and privacy challenges, Marines said they settled easily into the arrangement.
“Everyone’s pretty professional about it,” said Cpl. Carolina Ortiz, 27, a member of the task force’s artillery assessment. “Nothing less than green-on-green [respect] and everyone’s comfortable following the rules, so nobody sees anything they don’t want to see.” Most female Marines chose female tent mates for their weeks of living in the field, Ortiz said, but they had the option of rooming with a male Marine if they preferred.
… In more serious moments, some male volunteers told Marine Corps Times that adjusting to integrated life was awkward initially, but grew more comfortable as the unit spent time together. “It was really strange for some people at first,” said Cpl. Kevin Rodriguez, 22, who was directly assigned to a staff position at the artillery unit. “But now it’s like we’re brothers and sisters. It happened really fast …
Just good comrades! No screwing in the bushes like bunnies. As a long-time Boy Scout leader, I saw much of this is “socialist realism” reporting that glosses over unsettling details to paint a politically correct picture. No sexual assault problems here, just brothers and sisters in arms. As we saw in the 1997 films GI Jane and Starship Troopers (with one of its more best known scenes below).
Guessing about the results of women’s victory
Martin van Creveld gives us one view of the future in Men, Women & War
Here and there a few women {in history}were able to participate in combat … Their existence proves, if proof were needed, that women, provided they get the change, can command and rule just as well as men.
… the turning point in the relationship between men, women and war, as in so much else, was brought about by the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945. Politically speaking, nuclear weapons cut the link between victory and survival, thus ending the role of war as an instrument of politics and turning it into suicide. Even more important was their effect on masculine pride: precisely because there is no defence, they put an end to ‘heroic action’.
… Against this background it is no wonder that, in terms of both absolute size and relative numbers, the world’s most important armed forces have entered a prolonged decline. Other things being equal, the less likely those forces were to fight serious wars against equal opponents the more women they took in. … the more women the armed forces took in the less capable they became of fighting serious wars against equal opponents. The chicken-and-egg game started some time during the late 1960’s or early 1970s. … If it continues then the day is in sight when the only mission left to most of them will be peace-keeping …
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Women and gender issues, especially these about women in the military…
- 28 Articles: a guide to a successful insurgency against America, 7 May 2007 — About harassment and rape of women soldiers.
- Women as soldiers – an update (2009).
- Putting women in combat: a quick look at the other side of the debate.
- About the future of an American army with women as combat soldiers.
- Women in combat are the real Revolution in Military Affairs.
The Real Consequences Of Women In The Military
Just like every other bastion of tradition and masculinity, the military is under attack by the forces of progressivism. The military is by its very nature masculine, hierarchical, and undemocratic, as it must be to succeed in its core business of engaging with and killing the enemy. This also makes it a target.
Of all our institutions, the military is the one which has best resisted progressivism, in large part because of the nature of the job. One does not simply turn up and demand equality in the military. Incoming does not discriminate.
However the military is ultimately a servant of the political classes, and this is where the pressure to bow to feminism originates. Everywhere they go women moan, demand special treatment, and undermine hierarchy. This has happened to the military and sadly there is not enough will remaining today to resist it, as we have seen with the recent humiliating sight of soldiers walking in high heels.
Unless there is some change in leadership this can only get worse.
The Obvious Problems
female soldier with styr aug
Sensible, sane women take one of the many other options they have in life before they pursue a career in the military. We have to question what sort of women our society is creating that they would seriously consider a career in combat, and what sort of a society we are that allows them to follow through such a bizarre and catastrophic decision.
What would make a woman want a low paid job they cannot physically do, while surrounded twenty-four hours a day by dangerous jerks that treat them like shit? Unsurprisingly, for those who know the nature of women it is exactly that. Most of them have daddy issues, are mentally damaged, or the losers of the sexual market who cannot secure a man and have no other career options to fall back on.
The most obvious problem with women in the military is that they are simply not good enough. Even with the reduced physical requirements for the non-combat roles they are eligible for now, many of them still fail to make the grade. They cannot even meet their own specially lowered standards for a job stacking blankets but still draw the same pay as real soldiers who have to work even harder to pick up the slack.
The Human Cost
lynch-homecoming
Jessica Lynch became famous and scored a book deal after she was captured in Iraq in 2003. Her supply convoy, being driven by another female soldier, got lost and was ambushed in Nasiriyah, a militia stronghold that they were ordered to avoid. Lynch was heralded as a hero at the time by the media, portrayed as fighting to the last bullet.
In reality she had not fired a single round from her weapon. She had only joined the Army to save up money for college. The driver of the lead vehicle, Shoshana Johnson, joined the Army but never intended to go into combat. Like most women she just wanted the fun, fun, fun parts of being in the military, but not the actual, you know, military part of it. The oath they take means nothing to them.
Marines who were supposed to be securing bridges across the Euphrates for the invasion now had to be re-tasked to rescue this clusterfuck. Eleven soldiers died in the ambush. Six more, like Jessica Lynch, were captured. Another eighteen Marines died whilst desperately fighting through entrenched enemy positions in a hostile city to get to them in time.
Men, real men, real soldiers, then had to go in and rescue a scared nineteen-year-old girl from behind enemy lines because of progressives’ insistence that we are all the same and that women should be in the military despite all the obvious evidence that they shouldn’t.
military
I can’t tell this story without mentioning the real hero of that convoy. Sergeant Donald Walters was the blonde-haired American whose actions were misattributed to Jessica Lynch. Sergeant Walters’ vehicle became bogged down in sand. While the rest of his convoy made their escape, evidence suggests that he provided covering fire from his stranded vehicle.
He was abandoned alone, fifteen miles behind enemy lines and surrounded. He never made it out. He fought until he ran out of ammunition, and then he fought hand to hand. Eventually he was overcome, captured and then executed by the Shiite militia. While everybody has heard of Jessica Lynch, you have probably never heard of Sergeant Walters. If anybody deserves to be remembered from that day, it is him.
I don’t blame the women. They don’t know what they want. I blame the system that lies to women that they can be soldiers when it should be protecting them from themselves and their childish decisions. They should have been told, politely but firmly, no thanks—for their own safety and for that of the men serving alongside them. We do not allow children to serve in the military, so why would we allow women?
Women don’t actually want to be in combat. Their silly demands to be included are like a girl wanting to ride your motorcycle. It’s dangerous, exciting and looks fun so they want it, but when they get there they find they can’t handle it and they drop it. Women just like to push boundaries. The correct response is to pat these girls on the head, tell them to leave this to the grown ups and ride off.
Women In The Military Are Not Patriots
American_flag-2
There is a more serious problem than women being too feeble, fat and slow, and generally the worst soldiers known to mankind. It is more serious than them sleeping with senior ranks and subverting hierarchy. It is more serious than them getting pregnant on deployments or spreading diseases on base.
It is even more serious than women fucking up and getting good men killed. Even if we lived in the fantasy world of feminists where women really were just as capable as men, there are more deadly consequences of sending women to war.
We can afford to lose men in war. As long as there are healthy women back home having children the nation will live to fight another day. The presence of women in the military foreshadows a society’s downfall.
Look at the Peshmerga in Iraq, or the final days of Nazi Germany. These were not strong, independent women or an exercise in equality, they were the last, desperate gasps of a dying society. The Islamic State are marrying off their women and having as many children as possible. The Kurds are sending their women to the front line. Guess what the long term consequences of this is.
The biggest existential threat to the US and Western countries is not rogue states or Islamic terrorists. It is the loss of our individual identities as nations. Every woman that is lured away from the role of wife, mother and homemaker by the modern world leaves behind her a hole which must be filled. If our people cannot or will not fill those holes then they will be filled for us by immigration. A nation must grow or die. A population that cannot sustain itself will be replaced.
If our women are too busy playing soldiers or “leaning in” then the next generation will come from elsewhere and will not be like us. Men’s sacrifice for society was dying in wars and the dangerous jobs. Women’s sacrifice was bearing the next generation. The tradition of the pedestal arose because women carried within themselves the future of our nation.
With the encouragement of government and media they abdicated their responsibilities and with it, their pedestal. Their talk of patriotism is bullshit. If women truly wanted to serve their nation then they would get married, stay married, and have children.
http://www.returnofkings.com/62751/the-real-consequences-of-women-in-the-military
NMB,
I was in Nassiriyah during the Lynch affair. To be clear, the higher level leadership (battalion) failed that unit- not a lowly private.
They had no maps, directions, or leadership. It had nothing to do with sex.
Not quite sure how you’re comparing this to FM’s post.
Mr. MikeF, Sergeant Donald Walters was the Hero and determinant factor, are you saying this is not truth?
No, I’m saying that prior planning prevents piss poor performance. The reason that the disaster happened in the first place was bad leadership.
Both Walters and Lynch were victims of it.
“They had no maps”
What kind of soldier goes out without a map? Just Asking..
Rumsfeld’s Army.
It’s one thing that was never really discussed about the initial invasion.
It wasn’t just lack of body armor and crappy HMWWVs, most units did not have adequate maps.
Exacto,
“What kind of soldier goes out without a map?”
Great point. In 15 years as a Boy Scout leader I never went on a trek without a fistfull of maps of the local area, the region, and the route we drove to and back.
Just because there was also “poor planning” or the possibility that such caused the incident does not invalidate the details of the actual event, the reporting of it or the other ancillary causes/effects.
As stated in the Post:
“Just good comrades! No screwing in the bushes like bunnies. As a long-time Boy Scout leader, I saw much of this is “socialist realism” reporting that glosses over unsettling details to paint a politically correct picture. No sexual assault problems here, just brothers and sisters in arms. As we saw in the 1997 films GI Jane and Starship Troopers (with one of its more best known scenes below).”
So much of this women as superior being is simply false. It is propaganda at its basest level. False senses promulgated by social engineering. Find a group of average young women and enter into a dialogue. Marvel at the strong sense of self worth….and notice it is not based on accomplishments, beauty or superior verbal or math skills. Pure self fulfilling teaching at a deep societal level.
As in TV and Media!
As ROK offers this is very destructive stuff going on now, the results are obvious today and we do not need to wait for twenty years.
But never mind, nothing really to see if you haven’t need or desire to look.
Breton
Breton,
I’m not disagreeing with either you or ROK just stating that the Lynch example is a bad one. To use to make your case.
The media self-corrected in that case, and we all learned the truth.
See also Paula Broadwell doing push-ups on the Daily Show. How did that end?
Many of these comments read like self-parodies:
Men, real men, real soldiers, then had to go in and rescue a scared nineteen-year-old girl from behind enemy lines because of progressives’ insistence that we are all the same and that women should be in the military despite all the obvious evidence that they shouldn’t.
For a start, one could point to the WW II Red Army, or the current Israeli armed forces, for examples of women performing military service quite competently. Then one could go on to point out the many risky, physically difficult civilian professions that women have entered in recent years, where they have often served creditably.
I suppose it makes me a flaky, wish-thinking lefty pwog to say so, but so far I haven’t seen a single complaint in this thread that didn’t repeat practically verbatim objections raised when women tried to enter universities, or enter the professions. Likewise when blacks tried to do the same. Or Jews. Or before that probably the Irish. Lessons of history, yo. So why the angst and hysteria?
The soviets used women for some combat tasks, typically in places where women physical disadvantages would not matter much such as pilots or to make up some shortage such as tank drivers IIRC; I doubt any was sent to load 152mm howitzers or to haul a flamethrower.
While it was a pretty small fraction of combat manpower I have not got the impression they were selected according to some criteria along the lines of “top 0.01% of most warlike women”. On the other hand they were not encumbered by modern feminist ideology either.
In the last year that Russia fought in World War I -1917- an “amazon” regiment was formed. I read an English translation of their history in a military journal several years ago (now defunct), which was quite remarkable. However, some of their initial success was due to the mindset among German soldiers which made them reluctant to shoot women.
During the Second World War, the Soviet Union formed 100% female combat units. Generally, they performed quite well. In addition, the majority of the medics in the Red Army were women. Of special note was the performance of a 100% female fighter squadron, which outfought the Luftwaffe.
What’s noteworthy is that these units were 100% female.
I think that women would be most effective if they fought together as women in Amazon battalions.
Brian,
Martin van Creveld describes these in his book. They existed, but were quite small scale.
One of 2,000 female snipers in the Red Army, of whom about 500 survived the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
309 confirmed kills. Chris Kyle, 160 ck. I have a feeling the Wehrmacht may have been a slightly tougher outfit than what Kyle was up against. But I’m no military expert.
Agreed, the snipers were the extreme example of women on the front line. And, as I said, extremely small scale amidst armies of millions.
Joan Of Arc
I’m sorry, I think I missed your point. Or maybe you missed one. Exemptions to a rule are not the usual lead in to a new Rule. Paradigms shift by consensus after exceptions are accepted over time.
I guess it maybe alright for some to be taking a shower at 22 with a Demi Moore at 28….with a group of guys and a few more women. No angst or hysteria. Just plain old …..unintended consequences to some biological realities. Yes
Wishful thinking is a good survival mechanism. It also makes you easier to live with in difficult times. Yet it is just that wishful.
Breton
Who are you talking to?
Each military unit has its own “personality”. It is in a state of constant change due to personnel turnover, combat, and other stresses put on the unit. Stupid decisions in all male units,where I served, involved women, alcohol, drugs, theft, assault, racial conflict and so on.
The added pressure of constant deployments, sleep deprivation, danger, the lack of good leadership, both military and political, nation building, and fighting a war at the same time against an enemy that does not fight in accordance with yout plan.
Vietnam!
Toward the end of my career, in the late 80’s i observed a unit that was in a very remote location. Roughly half was male, and half female. Many of the women were in their late teens and VERY attractive. The end result was predictable, more than a few pregnant immature teenagers, far from home, and support. The command had a difficult time just holding the unit together and accomplish a mission of great importance.
Women, and men share similar traits. Some are great people, bright and dedicated. Others are jerks, immature, self centered, and disruptive. A smart, beautiful woman with negative traits can easily disrupt a unit. Many men in remote locations, far from home would find her difficult to resist. Two males in the same unit competing for a female distracts from the mission, and undemines good order and discipline.
On the other hand, great friendships develope under the pressure, and suffering endured in military service. To share that experience with a female, where there is mutual attraction, would lead many to a natural conclusion.
The addition of women to frontline military units makes the challenge of leadership much more difficult. As a leader your job is to accomplish the mission/get the job done with the materials, and personnel at hand. The true test will be a battles like Ia Drang, Chosen, Guadlcanal, Leyte Gulf , The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, or many of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Places where the fight is brutal, and the odds are against us.
It just may work or not. We will find out.
Catfish,
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us! I agree, it is difficult or impossible to predict how this all works out.
Fabius Maximus,
“One result has been to start a slow-mo purge in the officers corps. “At least 30% of military commanders fired over the past 8 years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships””
So you think that the Army’s firing are related to this major policy change? Tom Ricks’ book, The Generals, talked about how the Army’s relief for cause during the wars we’ve fought is as low as 1 up to 2010. Any chance that this is just a really inefficient and ineffective personnel management system showing its ugly side?
Regardless, I think your point stands here pretty strongly. Our Army hasn’t won a war in a while, now’s the time to get the military back into fighting shape, not mandate changes that will reduce mission readiness.
“What would Clausewitz or Patton make of this: “Lawmakers want clearer Army breastfeeding rules“?”
Good one!
PF Khans
PFK,
I suspect that the AP’s estimate of 30% of firings from sex-related offenses is accurate, and related to the tensions arising from the massive cultural shift taking place, not problems in the military’s personnel systems. I doubt any practical personnel system could handle this level of tension — both internal and imposed by Congress and society at large — without problems. That universities are simultaneously having a similar crisis shows that its a broad social problem.
The large rise in firings for other causes has more mysterious causes. My post about this discussed this.
Since 1945, to be exact.
Because America faces such a world full of ferocious enemies. Like the Russians — whose only aircraft carrier is so rusted out it almost sank last year, and most of whole navy is crumbling to the point where it will soon be retired.
Or the terrifying Chinese, who harbor sinister ambitions to…sell us lots more cheap tchotchis for our Wal-Marts.
The fact that America has lost every war it’s fought for 70 years and hasn’t been hurt a bit would suggest to a sane person that this tells us the age of large-scale land wars has ended, and instead of military conflict, the world now operates by cultural and economic clashes. Martin van Creveld made these points repreatedly in The Transformation of War, but no one seems to listen.
Forward to Baghdad, men! Honor and glory await!
Thomas
I think you bring up a valid point. As someone who was in favor of the Vietnam war and willing to put myself in danger because of that belief, I have spent years trying to understand where we went wrong. Just my 2 cents.
1. We apply our values to those of other nations. We believe our way is the best, and only way.
2. There is almost a religious belief that we are right, and obligated to intervene with military force.
3. A failure to understand who we are. In 1492 the Americas were populated by various tribes. As an old Marine Gunnery Sergeant told me, “we took it in a slow war lasting centuries”.
The Spanish American War was particularly brutal in the Philippines. Our troops referred to the native population as “niggers” and in letters home would describe how entire villages were destroyed, and the people killed. Some of these letters made it to publication and caused some problems for the political types. Well I shot 15 niggers today, just doesn’t have that ring like give me liberty or give me death. The sugar coating of our history has given us a bad case of overconfidence. A failure to acknowledge a mistake is a failure to learn from it.
4. Our success in WW Ii gave us a sense of infallibility. What the nation did was great but it’s evolved into a belief that we are Gods chosen people that we can do no wrong.
5. We spend trillions on weapon systems we think we need. In spite of our technology, the valor, and sacrifice of our troops, victory has evaded us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We depend on overwhelming firepower, and technology to win.
The human mind, is to date, the ultimate weapon, and it chooses the time, place, and tactics, Our enemy’s attack our weakness vs our strength. AND are willing to sustain casulities in huge numbers, continue to fight, and recruit. As we kill enemy leaders in the Middle East they are replaced by those who are even more radical and brutal. Sadly the lesson of Vietnam was forgotten, Those who evaded military service are today’s right wing heroes.
6. Exactly what is victory? What are our military and political goals? Are those goals realistic? Is this military action worth the life of someone you love, your child, spouse? To succeed we have to understand what the people of the Middle East want. We don’t have to like it or agree with it but we do have to understand it.
Catfish,
All good points, and things I’ve written about here.
It’s not just that we’ve forgotten our history (especially that between the Civil War and the New Deal), but we’ve overlaid it with fantasy. The opening of the West was an ugly affair, which we’ve replaced in our minds with a fantasy.
As for the present, we have a bad case of the Victory Disease. It seldom ends well.
As I see it, there is nothing wrong with a female serving in combat roles in our nations military; qualifications should be judged by solely upon ability, not by gender. If a woman is more qualified for a position than a man, she should receive that decision, and vice versa. This is applicable to either mental OR physical capabilities. Refuting this statement by stating that having a woman in a platoon would lead to a “distraction” justifies disorderly conduct and possibilities of sexual assault. And for those using history to reason an opposing argument, it should be noted that the ranks of the Vietcong guerillas in the 1960s were largely composed of female fighters. Did this decision result in a disaster for the Communist forces? Far from it; in fact, it led to the first American defeat in the history of war.
I respect anyone’s opinion to think otherwise, but that is how I see it.
Candy,
Yes, as widely noted women figure prominently in most guerrilla movements — and on near-equality in some (e.g., Eritrea).
As for the degree of disruption from women in more conventional forces, and how to deal with that, we can only guess at this time.
I am suspicious of those on both sides who confidently pronounce answers on ideological grounds. History suggests that experimentation and experience are better guides. Ideology has a long history of producing cataclysmic outcomes when followed blindly.
War is among the most complex of social activities, and often counterintuitive outcomes rule. Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest things are very difficult (Clauswitz).